Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th March, 1958
N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
Petns. Nos. 91, 99, 100, 101, 103 and 116 to 118 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Nambiyar, Senior Advocate, Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat & Co., with him, for the Petitioners (In Petn. No. 91 of 57);
M/s. K. M. Munshi and L. K. Jha, Senior Advocates, (M/s. S. S . Shukla, Balbhadra Prasad Sinha and R. J. Joshi, Advocates, with them), for the Petitioners (In Petns. Nos. 99 of 101 of 57);
M/s. S. P. Sinha and Gurbachan Singh, Senior Advocates, M/s. Harbans Singh and R. Patnaik, Advocates, with them, for the Petitioners (In Pten. No. 103 of 57);
Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate, for the Petitioners (In Petitions Nos. 116-118 of 57);
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 1: (In all the Petns.);
Mr. A .V. Vishwanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. Vishwanathan and B. R. L. Aiyangar, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him, for Respondent No. 3 (In Petn. No. 91 of 57);
M/s. N. C. Chatterjee and A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocates, M/s. S. Vishwanathan and A. N. Sinha, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with them, for the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (In all the Petns.);
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. Vishwanathan and A. N. Sinha, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him, for the Delhi Union of Journalists (In Petn. No. 103 of 57);
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. Vishwanathan and B. R. L. Aiyangar, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him, for the Federation of Press Trust of India Employees Union, Bombay Union of Journalists and Gujrat Working Journalists Union;
Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate and Mr. G. Gopalkrishnan, advocate, of M/s. Gagrat & Co., for Appellants (In C. A. No. 699 of 57);
Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate and M/s. S. S. Shukla and R. J. Joshi, Advocates, with him, for Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 700 to 702 of 57);
Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate and M/s. Harbans Singh and R. Patnaik, Advocates, with him, for Appellants (In C. A. No. 703 of 57);
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with him, for Respondents No. 1; (In all the Appeals);
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him, for the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (In all the Appeals), Respondent No. 3 (In C. A. No. 703 of 57) and Respondent No. 2 (In C. A. No. 700 of 57.)
—see decision in decision in Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578=1958 SCJ 1113=1958 SCA 952 = 1959 SCR 12 = 1958-59(4) FJR 211 = 1961(1) LLJ 339.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized in a clear and organized manner:
Vires of the Act and Decision of Wage Board: The petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and the validity of the Wage Board’s decision. The primary contention was that the Act and the Wage Board’s decision infringed upon fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14, and 32 of the Constitution.
History and Context of Legislation: The development of the newspaper industry and the need for regulation of working conditions for journalists led to the enactment of the Act. The industry evolved from individual newspapers to profit-oriented enterprises, necessitating regulation of wages, hours, and conditions to protect working journalists.
Principles of Wage Fixation: The decision-making process for fixing wages involves principles such as the concept of living wages, fair wages, and minimum wages, with emphasis on the capacity of the industry to pay, the standard of living, and the economic conditions of different regions.
Machinery for Wage Fixation: Wage fixing is typically carried out by wage boards or similar bodies, which are usually composed of representatives of employers, employees, and independent members. These bodies operate with procedures that should ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to be heard and the requirement to give reasons for decisions.
Nature of Functions of Wage Boards: The functions of wage boards are generally considered quasi-judicial or administrative. The determination of wages involves collecting data, hearing evidence, and making decisions that could have legislative or judicial character depending on how the process is structured and whether decisions are subject to judicial review.
Procedural Safeguards: Proper safeguards include the requirement for reasons to be given for decisions, fair procedures, and opportunities for affected parties to be heard. The absence of reasons or arbitrary procedures could invalidate decisions, but the law permits discretion in the procedure, provided natural justice principles are observed.
Classification and Grouping of Establishments: The classification of newspapers based on gross revenue, and the grouping into chains or multiple units, are considered legitimate, provided they are rational and not arbitrary. The basis of classification should be relevant to the purpose of wage fixation.
Assessment of Industry’s Capacity to Pay: The decision of the Wage Board must consider the capacity of the industry to pay, which includes analyzing financial data such as profit and loss statements, circulation figures, advertisement revenue, and overall economic health of the industry. The Board’s failure to properly evaluate this capacity renders its decision ultra vires.
Retrospective Operation and Duration of Fixation: The law permits retrospective fixing of wages and setting periods for wage fixation, but these must be justified. The decision to fix wages for a period of three years, or to have review mechanisms, should be based on rational considerations.
Impacts on Business and Fundamental Rights: The heavy financial burdens imposed by the Act and the Wage Board’s decisions could threaten the viability of newspaper establishments, potentially infringing on their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). However, such restrictions are permissible if they are reasonable and in the interest of public welfare, which was contested.
Discrimination and Classification: The classification of working journalists as a separate group for the purpose of benefits and wage fixation is justified as it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the objective of improving their conditions. The law does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14.
Fundamental Rights and Restrictions: The law’s restrictions are valid if they are reasonable and serve a legitimate public interest. The right to freedom of speech and the press is fundamental, but it can be subjected to restrictions that are reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in pursuit of public order, morality, or other permissible interests.
Right to Approach the Court: The right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is preserved, and the law does not deny the petitioners the ability to seek judicial review. The absence of a requirement for reasons in the decision of the Wage Board does not violate the petitioners’ rights, as the Board is given discretion on whether to give reasons.
Validity of the Decision: The decision of the Wage Board was found to be invalid because it did not properly consider the capacity of the industry to pay, lacked sufficient procedural safeguards, and was based on incomplete data. Consequently, the decision was declared ultra vires and void.
Severability of Provisions: The law’s provisions that are unconstitutional, specifically relating to certain benefits, can be struck down without invalidating the entire Act, which remains valid for other purposes.
Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, the Act’s provisions were upheld except for the specific clause found unconstitutional, and the decisions of the Wage Board were declared illegal and void. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
These points collectively summarize the legal principles, procedural considerations, and constitutional issues discussed in the document.
Judgment
N. H. Bhagwati J. : These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise the question as to the vires of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and the decision of the Wage Board constituted thereunder. As they raise common questions of law and fact they can be dealt with under one common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it will be helpful to trace the history of the events which led to the enactment of the impugned Act.
3. The newspaper industry in India did not originally start as an industry, but started as individual newspapers founded by leaders in the national, political, social and 587 economic fields. During the last half a century, however, it developed characteristics of a profit-making industry in which big industrialists invested money and combines controlling several newspapers all over the country also became the special feature of this development. The Working Journalists except for the comparatively large number that were found concentrated in the big metropolitan cities, were scattered all over the country and for the last ten years and more agitated that some means should be found by which those working in the newspaper industry were enabled to have their wages and salaries, their dearness allowance and other allowances, their retirement benefits, their rules of leave and conditions of service, enquire into by some impartial agency or authority, who would be empowered to fix just and reasonable terms and conditions of service for Working Journalists as a whole.
4. Isolated attempts were made by the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Governments in this behalf. On 18th June 1947, the Government of Uttar Pradesh appointed a committee to enquire into the newspaper industry in the Uttar Pradesh.
5. On 27th March 1948, the Government of Central Provinces & Berar also appointed an Inquiry Committee to examine and report on certain questions relating to the general working of the newspaper industry in the province, including the general conditions of work affecting the editorial and other staff off newspapers, their emoluments including dearness allowance, leave, provident fund, pensionary benefits, etc.
6. The committees aforesaid made their reports on the respective dates 31st March 1949 and 27th March 1948 making certain recommendations. The All-India problem, however, remained to be tackled and during the debate in Parliament on the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to appoint a committee or a commission, including representatives of the Press, to examine the state of the Press and its content. He elaborated the idea further on 1st June 1951 when he indicated that an enquiry covering the larger issue of the Press, such as had been carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal Commission, might be productive of good for the Press and the development of this very important aspect of public affairs. The idea was further discussed during the debate in Parliament on the Press (Incitement of Crimes) Bill, later named the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1952. At its session held in April 1952 at Calcutta, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists adopted a resolution for the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the conditions of the Press in India with a view to improving its place, status and functioning in the new democratic set up. The appointment of the Press Commission was thereafter ammounced in a Communique issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, on 23rd September 1952 under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha.
7. The terms of reference inter alia were -
"2. The Press Commission shall enquire into the state of the Press in India, its present and future lines of development and shall in particular examine:-
...........................
(iv) the method of recruitmen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
